The casualty profile from the Reading train crash, November 2004: proposals for improved major incident reporting and the application of trauma scoring systems

Kuala Lumpur train collision during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Two city trains collided in an underground tunnel on 24 May 2021 at the height of COVID-19 pandemic near the Petronas Towers, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, immediately after the evening rush hours. We aim to evaluate the management of this mass casualty incident highlighting the lessons learned to be used in preparedness for similar incidents that may occur in other major cities worldwide.

METHODS

Information regarding incident site and hospital management response were analysed. Data on demography, triaging, injuries and hospital management of patients were collected according to a designed protocol. Challenges, difficulties and their solutions were reported.

RESULTS

The train's emergency response team (ERT) has shut down train movements towards the incident site. Red zone (in the tunnel), yellow zone (the station platform) and green zone (outside the station entrance) were established. The fire and rescue team arrived and assisted the ERT in the red zone. Incident command system was established at the site. Medical base station was established at the yellow zone. Two hundred and fourteen passengers were in the trains. Sixty-four of them were injured. They had a median (range) ISS of 2 (1-43), and all were sent to Hospital Kuala Lumpur (HKL). Six (9.4%) patients were clinically triaged as red (critical), 19 (29.7%) as yellow (semi-critical) and 39 (60.9%) as green (non-critical). HKL's disaster plan was activated. All patients underwent temperature and epidemiology link assessment. Seven (10.9%) patients were admitted to the hospital (3 to the ICU, 3 to the ward and 1 to a private hospital as requested by the patient), while the rest 56 (87.5%) were discharged home. Six (9.4%) needed surgery. The COVID-19 tests were conducted on seven patients (10.9%) and were negative. There were no deaths.

CONCLUSIONS

The mass casualty incident was handled properly because of a clear standard operating procedure, smooth coordination between multi-agencies and the hospitals, presence of a 'binary' system for 'COVID-risk' and 'non-COVID-risk' areas, and the modifications of the existing disaster plan. Preparedness for MCIs is essential during pandemics.

Systematic reporting to improve the emergency medical response to major incidents: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Major incidents affect us globally, and are occurring with increasing frequency. There is still no evidence-based standard regarding the best medical emergency response to major incidents. Currently, reports on major incidents are non-standardised and variable in quality. This pilot study examines the first systematic reports from a consensus-based, freely accessible database, aiming to identify how descriptive analysis of reports submitted to this database can be used to improve the major incident response.

METHODS

Majorincidentreporting.net is a website collecting reports on major incidents using a standardised template. Data from these reports were analysed to compare the emergency response to each incident.

RESULTS

Data from eight reports showed that effective triage by experienced individuals and the use of volunteers for transport were notable successes of the major incident response. Inadequate resources, lack of a common triage system, confusion over command and control and failure of communication were reported failures. The following trends were identified: Fires had the slowest times for several aspects of the response and the only three countries to have a single dialling number for all three emergency services had faster response times. Helicopter Emergency Medical services (HEMS) were used for transport and treatment in rural locations and for triage and treatment in urban locations. In two incidents, a major incident was declared before the arrival of the first Emergency Medical Services (EMS) personnel.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that we can obtain relevant data from major incidents by using systematic reporting. Though the sample size from this pilot study is not large enough to draw any specific conclusions it illustrates the potential for future analyses. Identified lessons could be used to improve the emergency medical response to major incidents.

Hospital referral patterns: how emergency medical care is accessed in a disaster

BACKGROUND

A prevalent assumption in hospital emergency preparedness planning is that patient arrival from a disaster scene will occur through a coordinated system of patient distribution based on the number of victims, capabilities of the receiving hospitals, and the nature and severity of illness or injury. In spite of the strength of the emergency medical services system, case reports in the literature and major incident after-action reports have shown that most patients who present at a health care facility after a disaster or other major emergency do not necessarily arrive via ambulance. If these reports of arrival of patients outside an organized emergency medical services system are accurate, then hospitals should be planning differently for the impact of an unorganized influx of patients on the health care system. Hospitals need to consider alternative patterns of patient referral, including the mass convergence of self-referred patients, when performing major incident planning.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of published studies from the past 25 years to identify reports of patient care during disasters or major emergency incidents that described the patients' method of arrival at the hospital. Using a structured mechanism, we aggregated and analyzed the data.

RESULTS

Detailed data on 8303 patients from more than 25 years of literature were collected. Many reports suggest that only a fraction of the patients who are treated in emergency departments following disasters arrive via ambulance, particularly in the early postincident stages of an event. Our 25 years of aggregate data suggest that only 36% of disaster victims are transported to hospitals via ambulance, whereas 63% use alternate means to seek emergency medical care.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitals should evaluate their emergency plans to consider the implications of alternate referral patterns of patients during a disaster. Additional consideration should be given to mass triage, site security, and the potential need for decontamination after a major incident.

One Hundred Years of Railway Disasters and Recent Trends

Introduction: Globally, railway transport is increasing steadily. Despite the adoption of diverse safety systems, major railway incidents continue to occur. Higher speeds and increased passenger traffic are factors that influence the risk of mass-casualty incidents and make railway crashes a reality that merits extensive planning and training.

Methods: Data on railway disasters were obtained from the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), which maintains the Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT). This descriptive study consists of 529 railway disasters (≥10 killed and/or ≥100 non- fatally injured) from 1910 through 2009.

Results: The number of railway disasters, people killed, and non-fatally injured, has increased throughout the last hundred years—particularly during the last four decades (1970–2009), when 88% of all disasters occurred. In the mid-20th century, a shift occurred, resulting in more people being non-fatally injured than fatally injured. During 1970–2009, 74% of all railway disasters occurred in Asia, Africa, and South and Central America, combined. The remaining 26% occurred in Europe, North America, and Oceania, combined. Since 1980, railway disasters have increased, especially in Asia and Africa, while Europe has had a decrease in railway disasters. The number killed per disaster (1970–2009) was highest in Africa (n = 55), followed by South and Central America (n = 47), and Asia (n = 44). The rate was lowest in North America (n = 10) and Europe (n = 29). On average, the number of non-fatal injuries per disaster was two to three times the number of fatalities, however, in the African countries (except South Africa) the relation was closer to 1:1, which correlates to the relation found in more developed countries during the mid-20th century. The total losses (non-fatally and fatally injured) per disaster has shown a slight decreasing trend.

Conclusions: Despite extensive crash avoidance and injury reduction safety systems, railway crashes occur on all continents, indicating that this type of incident must be accounted for in disaster planning and training. Better developed safety, crashworthiness, and rescue resources in North America and Europe may be factors explaining why the number of crashes and losses has stabilized and why the average number of people killed per disaster is lowest on these continents.